Status of Women Committee on March 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

The clerk is sending it to the interpreter post-haste.

If you could send it to Madame Larouche, I think that would help also. Thanks so much.

You might as well read it again in French, Anita.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Okay.

The beginning of the motion would remain the same, but it would end like this:

... devant le comité avec un panel d'une heure dédié au ministre de la Défense nationale; une table ronde d'une heure consacrée au chef d'état-major par intérim de la défense, le Lgén Wayne Eyre, et à la Lgén Frances Allen, représentante militaire du Canada auprès de l'OTAN; un panel d'une heure dédié au grand prévôt des Forces canadiennes, Simon Trudeau...

That's because he is the person to whom the investigation service reports. That's a replacement for that one.

I forgot to include the ombudsman's name, Gregory Lick. It should be added to the amendment, Madam Clerk.

I will continue reading the amendment:

... un panel d'une heure dédié à la juge de la Cour suprême à la retraite Marie Deschamps; et inviter un représentant de It's Just 700...

I then removed all the survivors' names, because I truly believe they should choose whether or not their names are released.

It's not because we don't want to put in individuals. It's because they are survivors, or advocates of survivors, and I really believe it is very important that we not put them in a position in which they would publicly have to say yes or no. That's a lot of pressure when we're dealing with this subject matter. That's why I took those names out. All of them are the same except the survivors at the end.

I have replaced the national investigation service with the provost marshal, because he is the person they report to. He is in a better position and wouldn't have to talk about the actual investigation and perhaps cause a problem with the investigation.

Those are the only changes I've made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

On a procedural point, there is not an ability, once an amendment has been moved, for the originator to amend the amendment. They have to either seek the consent of the committee to withdraw the original one and propose a new one, or....

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Do I have the consent of the committee to do that?

I see a “no”. Okay.

I will go with my original amendment as it was written, but if another member wants to add the ombudsman back later on, I would be quite amenable to that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I would like to note that when I read out the motion, I put Lieutenant-General Frances Allen's current role in there correctly, so that doesn't need to be changed by any potential amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

That's a good clarification.

The other thing that's missing in the amendment, if I could point it out, is the minimum of four consecutive meetings. It is always the will of the committee that we do it. If we decide to add more meetings after the fact, it's always okay to do that.

Next on the list I have Ms. Alleslev.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak to the replacing of the CFNIS with the provost marshal. The argument that was made by my honourable colleagues is that they wouldn't want to have to speak about ongoing investigations. These are professionals. They are experts in their field. They know from years of experience exactly what they can say and what they can't and what would compromise an investigation and what would not, and I think it is unfair of this committee to prejudge a senior officer in that regard, that he would be somehow compromised by coming to our committee.

We need to understand at a very tactical level the process, the rank structure and the way in which investigations are conducted—the way in which they are made aware of investigations, as well as all of the process and structure around investigations—but certainly not any of the details around any of the specific investigations. I have a high level of confidence that being the expert he is, he would be perfectly in a position to do that.

Replacing him with the provost marshal is not only unnecessary but also would not give us the information to the degree that we need to have that information, particularly in light of the Fifth Estate investigative report that came out recently about the challenges in terms of process that some of the investigators in the CFNIS are facing when investigating these kinds of allegations.

That is my proposal or comment on the replacing aspect.

With respect to the victims, we are doing them a significant injustice by not naming them. Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor, retired master corporal Raymond and Dawn McIlmoyle-Knott have all been incredibly courageous by communicating in public about the challenges they have faced. I have every level of confidence that were the clerk of the committee to invite them, if they didn't feel comfortable coming to our committee, they would be more than capable of declining our invitation.

Therefore, to put their names in this document does not in any way compromise them, their safety, or their security. It doesn't put them in any kind of difficult position. They have already chosen to show how incredibly strong and courageous they are by coming forward. We are simply saying that should they want to come, we want to outline that we would like to have them.

In the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor, she still is a currently serving member of the Canadian Forces and she has been very public. I believe that putting her name in this motion would ensure that we can send a message to her just how important her testimony is and how what she has to say and why she is doing so at this point are of such great value.

I am concerned about not having the ombudsman in there, so we need to make sure the ombudsman is in there. We also need to ensure that the committee is dedicating the four consecutive meetings to this study.

In terms of the original motion, I can't see that any of the arguments for why we should be changing it hold water, so it is my perspective that the current motion, as given to us by Ms. Mathyssen of the NDP, is exactly the motion we need to start this study.

Again, I thank her for the discussion and I thank Ms. Mathyssen for putting this very important and well thought-out motion forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Sidhu is next.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I fully support Ms. Vandenbeld's amendment.

Ms. Larouche raised an excellent point about the testimony from the survivors, our respect for the pain the survivors have already endured and how women who come forward publicly about sexual assaults are treated. I want to suggest that some witnesses be given the option of presenting in camera.

We have a real opportunity to discover the tools that do and do not work and to make a strong and timely recommendation to the government. It is not fair to force the survivors to do this in public. We want to hear from survivors, but they need to know that their privacy will be protected. We are calling them so that we can learn from their experiences.

Finally Madam Chair, I would like to suggest a subamendment for clarification after the witness list as it stands. I would like to add that each party may submit further witnesses to be invited. It is fair for everyone.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

The subamendment, then, is that each party will submit further witnesses. We can discuss the subamendment.

I have Ms. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to everyone.

This is a very important topic. As members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, it is really very important that we make sure this study is focused on the survivors: on hearing from the survivors, empowering the survivors and allowing them a comfortable platform where they can come and share their experiences.

I totally agree with the amendment that has been proposed by my colleague Ms. Vandenbeld about not naming survivors in the motion, because that might prevent.... There might be some survivors who would not like to come. It is not necessary that if a survivor comes out and talks about something on one platform, they come and talk about that on all the platforms. I think it is really very important that we hear from the survivors but not include them in the main motion. All the parties should have the opportunity to submit the list of the witnesses they would like to hear from, and those should be in camera meetings so that they are comfortable sharing and coming out.

Our role is to empower more and more women so that they can come and talk about their experiences. It's not to be a barrier to someone coming out on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Very good.

Did you have a comment, Ms. Sidhu?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

I have just two points, Madam Chair.

First, we can say that each party “may” submit further witnesses. I said “will” but it's “each party may submit further witnesses”. That's where I wanted to make a point.

I have one more point, and that is to also allow survivors to choose to testify in camera. It should be their choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Ms. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I also want to come back to the question of inviting survivors and the importance of them choosing whether or not they want to appear before the committee. As we have seen elsewhere, when someone says something to a reporter or blows a whistle, as was the case with Pornhub, it does not necessarily mean that they are willing to make a public statement or be called to testify. Being named is not the same as being called to testify with a motion. I feel the subamendment is to ensure that we can invite other witnesses, because we will have some. You're going to see that some individuals will want to appear before the committee or submit a brief.

I also want to come back to the very good point that Ms. Larouche made with respect to the LGBTQ+ community. That community has experienced even more discrimination, prejudice and abuse, especially in the Canadian Armed Forces. Just think of all the cases we have heard about. I feel it's important to emphasize that. My concern with the original motion is, what will the focus of our study be? In my opinion, we really need to make the survivors our focal point and provide a safe space for them to come forward and talk about their experiences in a setting that is right for them.

Furthermore, our committee has no mandate to conduct investigations into specific cases. That is precisely why those investigations are being conducted by others. The people who do the investigations are very well trained. I don't know what more we can get from someone who is going to have to tell the committee that they can't comment on this or that. However, if we invite the provost marshal overseeing the investigations, we can get all the details that Ms. Alleslev and other members want about protocol and how the investigations are being handled.

So I support the subamendment, which I feel is a friendly one. Ms. Vandenbeld already supports it. I certainly support both amendments, which will help us really focus the motion on the survivors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

I just have a quick note. Of course, the committee can do as it chooses. If witnesses need to appear in camera they can ask to do so. I know our committee and the clerk will certainly let us know. We will respect that.

I'm not really sure why this needs to be a subamendment, other than the fact that it could potentially be a delay. I would hate to think the other members are doing that. I would say the subamendment is unnecessary and that we should move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Just to clarify, the subamendment would allow each party to submit further witnesses. The discussion about the privacy of individuals and holding the meeting in camera happened after that. It's the same as with an amendment. You can't amend a subamendment after you've made it, unless you have unanimous consent to withdraw.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I think all these points have been made, right, that the committee is the master of its own...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes, and it's in our Standing Orders that the committee may do in camera meetings to protect an individual's privacy.

Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I don't think there was any intention for this subamendment to become the subject of lots of debate. I'm pretty sure we could probably just vote on it. I mean, it was more that we wanted to be sure that the witnesses many Liberal members have and would not be comfortable putting forward publicly would still be able to get called as witnesses. It's really just further clarity.

I don't think there's any harm in this subamendment. I would imagine that we could probably deal with the subamendment quickly and get back to my amendment, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

One would hope so.

Madame Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am trying to keep up with the conversation. With the amendment, we are trying to put forward another list and add a subamendment to call more witnesses; that is how I understand it.

I also understand from Mrs. Mathyssen's original motion that we can start with the witnesses listed. Then we can look at the gaps and what was not addressed by the witnesses. We have done that in other studies.

I feel that this is a very important study. The goal is to be as thorough as possible and to stay alert to what has not been addressed. To do that, we drew up a list of key witnesses at the outset to help us shed light on this issue. We need to ensure that no more women leave the military out of fear. That was on the news yesterday. It is important.

If I am wrong, the chair or the analysts can correct me. Today, we are debating the original motion as introduced, but anyone, including myself or the Liberals, is free to move for an extra day or two to hear from witnesses, so we can look into what was not covered. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Yes. It is always part of the will of the committee if members choose to add additional witnesses. I believe Ms. Sidhu has moved this for additional clarity, so that it's captured in our motion, although it is always at the will of the committee.

Ms. Dhillon.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to reiterate that it's really important that victims and survivors have the opportunity to testify before the committee. I don't understand the urgency of having people in high-ranking positions testify, rather than using that time to hear from the survivors, the victims.

Another committee is already doing that. As I said before, it is not our job as members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to conduct an investigation. That really bothers me.

I'm listening to my colleagues with great interest and respect. I feel it is crucial to invite all the survivors and victims who want to testify. They need to feel free, for once, to talk about their experience, about what they went through. They need to feel comfortable doing it.

Sometimes toxic masculinity doesn't only affect women; men can be victims of it as well. The culture within the Canadian military is such that people in positions of power, people who sexually assault or harass someone, do it to control that person.

You know, abusing somebody is more about control than it is about sexual enjoyment or pleasure. I know I'm getting off topic a bit, but what I'm trying to say is that it's very important that we look at this question in such a way that we empower the survivors, the victims, and we will empower them by giving them the choice to come in and speak if they want to or not.

I will repeat my question: why do we need people in high-ranking positions to testify before the committee? Other committees are going to call them. Our committee's role is to listen to the survivors, the victims.

My dear colleagues, in our study of the effects of the pandemic on women, we had women leaders of organizations come and testify about victims and survivors. We had the opportunity to hear them, and they got the chance to speak and be heard.

Personally, I do not understand why we are not focusing more on inviting survivors instead of high-ranking people to speak on behalf of these women. I would really like the committee to hear from the survivors, the victims. I feel it's important to approach the issue in that way.

Thank you very much.